Nikon D4s First Impressions Review

It's been two years since Nikon introduced their flagship SLR, the D4. While that camera has undoubtedly stood the test of time, Nikon has decided that it's time for a refresh. That camera is the D4s which, on the surface, doesn't look much different than its predecessor. That's because, by and large, the major changes to the D4s are inside its magnesium alloy body.

The biggest changes on the D4s are its processor (now covered by the Expeed 4 standard), wider ISO range (topping out at 409,600), group area AF feature, and slightly faster burst speeds. Nikon has also reduced viewfinder blackout time, made transitions more 'smooth' when shooting time-lapse, and added 1080/60p video recording. Movie aficionados will also enjoy the ability to use Auto ISO when using manual exposure, audio range and level adjustment, and the ability to output uncompressed video over HDMI while simultaneously recording to a memory card.

Nikon D4s key features

'Newly designed' 16 megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor

Expeed 4 processing

ISO 100-25,600 (expandable to ISO 50 - 409,600 equiv)

51-point autofocus system (same as D4)

Group Area AF allows for more accurate subject tracking with less 'distraction'

Gigabit Ethernet port, in addition to support for WT-5A wireless transmitter

EN-EL18a battery provides 3020 shots per charge (CIPA)

In addition to those features, there are numerous small changes that have been made, with the Expeed 4 processor having a lot to do with it. Probably the biggest benefit of Expeed 4 is a wider ISO range, which now tops out at a whopping 409,600 (this is the Hi4 setting). The processing system has also increased the top burst rate to 11 fps (with AF). And speaking of increased speed, the D4s' mirror has a shorter travel distance, which reduces viewfinder blackout times.

There have been subtle changes to the camera's exposure system, starting with the ability to use face detection to determine metering while using the OVF. Exposure changes when using live view, interval shooting, or time-lapse movie are now less abrupt. Speaking of interval shooting, you can now take up to 9999 shots per sequence. The Active D-Lighting feature now has an 'Extra High 2' setting, though Nikon says that will look pretty 'artsy' at that point.

Another small change worth mentioning is the camera's ability to use the Auto ISO feature while in manual exposure mode. This allows you to choose a shutter speed and an aperture setting and let the camera decide on the necessary ISO. And, because the D4s has an Exposure Comp button as well as two control dials, you can apply exposure compensation so that you get your chosen image brightness, when working this way.

The D4s uses the new EN-EL18a battery for power, which allows for an incredible 3020 shots per charge (CIPA standard). Those who own EN-EL18 batteries can use them as well.

Compared to D4

Below is a quick comparison of the major differences between the D4 and D4s:

Nikon D4

Nikon D4s

Sensor

16.2MP FX-format CMOS

Processing

Expeed 3

Expeed 4

ISO range (standard)

100 - 12,800

100 - 25,600

ISO range (expanded)

50 - 204,800

50 - 409,600

Group AF area

No

Yes

Maintains focus point when changing orientation

No

Yes

Continuous shooting w/AF

10 fps

11 fps

Top Active D-Lighting option

Extra High

Extra High 2

Top movie resolution

1080/30p (24Mbps)

1080/60p (42 or 24Mbps)

Interval shooting limit

999 shots

9999 shots

Ethernet

100Mbps

1000Mbps

Memory cards

CompactFlash, XQD

Batteries used

EN-EL18

EN-EL18a, EN-EL18

Battery life (CIPA)

2600 shots

3020 shots*

* with EN-EL18a battery

As you can see, everything on the D4s is an improvement to the D4 - at least on paper.

Autofocus

The biggest news, in terms of autofocus, is the D4s' ability to continuously focus at the camera's highest frame rate (a feature limited to 10fps on the D4). Another way of looking at the 'decreased viewfinder blackout' that Nikon is promoting is: 'having the mirror in the position that allows AF, for longer.' As such, we suspect the redesigned mirror mechanism plays more of a role in allowing the extra 1 frame per second focusing, as the camera's more powerful processor. What it certainly hasn't changed is the AF sensor itself, so it's mostly a case of making the most of what's already there, rather than radically overhauling the camera's capabilities.

Although it doesn't detail or quantify the changes, Nikon promises that the autofocus algorithms have been tweaked and improved - which could prove to be the most significant change. The only example of this given is that the AF lock-on is now slightly less easily distracted by objects crossing in front of the intended subject.

Beyond this, there are a couple of small feature additions, but no claims of any fundamental re-thinking. The D4s now includes a focus point mode in which the AF point will switch to the nearest comparable position, as you rotate the camera - jumping to the top left position in portrait orientation if you'd selected the top left point while the camera is in the landscape orientation, for instance.

There's also a Group AF mode, in which the user can specify a cluster of five points to focus on, rather than having to choose a single point. The existing system did allow you to specify the number of surrounding points that the AF system would consider, but the new mode gives much greater weight to the four points adjacent to the selected AF target. As with many of the AF behavior tuning options in cameras at this level, we suspect the benefit of this feature will be specific to a certain shooting situation, and its value will only be revealed when applied to that situation.

Movies

Perhaps the biggest surprise to us is how little the D4s has gained in terms of movie functions. The headline change is that the D4s can now shoot 1080 video at frame rates of 60p and 50p (at bitrates of around 48Mbps), but beyond that, there's not much that's changed. There's been no improvement in whatever limited the D4 to 20 minutes of video recording: the D4s hits a similar limit, with high bitrate 60p restricting the camera to just 10 minutes of footage capture.

The D4s can now adjust audio volume as it records, but there are no additional features to support movie capture: no focus peaking or zebra, and no additional high bitrate settings for the frame rates already offered by the D4. Unlike existing Nikons, the D4s can now simultaneously output uncompressed video over HDMI and record to internal memory cards.

Overall, though while the D4s makes sense as a camera head - buried in a rig with external monitors and recorders bolstering its capabilities - it's hasn't taken any big steps towards being the modern photojournalist's stills and movies all-rounder. This isn't to say the D4s isn't a credible camera for using video; just that, after years of manufacturers insisting on the importance of video as a tool for working photojournalists, we're surprised to see so few changes or additions have been made.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital
Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help
you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based
on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review
before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed
at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom
right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a
larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply
use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section
either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the
navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their
monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted)
PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make
out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale
blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should
be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally
A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

You're just a troll. Use the Nikon 70-200 first, it's wonderful, use the 24-70, it could even be better than the current canon that costs much more, use the 14-24 which to this day is used by everyone for landscape, with adapters, because it still has no equal. Use the current nikon 85 1.4G, and I could go on all day.

Is he a troll or you just a Nikonfanboy? The 70-200L IS II from Canon outperformes the Nikon easily, the 85mm 1.2 L II is 30% faster that the Nikon (with an equal IQ from f1.4 on). I don't know much about the 24-70 from Nikon, the Canon one is quite nice except of short distances.

Sony glass is from Carl Zeiss, if you don't know them this would explain a lot of things.

"Sony glass is from Carl Zeiss…" Which is meaningless. That 's like saying a Nikon lens with a gold ring, or Canon "L" glass is excellent when that isn't true. The only thing true with lenses is that you have to base each lens on its own merits.

There are "gold ring" Nikkors that aren't that great; same with some Canon "L" glass… and the same goes for Zeiss. Just because its Zeiss glass doesn't put it heads above a premium lens from Nikon or Canon by default. In fact, a smart photographer will see whether or not the smidgen of difference (if it even exists for a particular Zeiss lens) is worth the premium cost over a comparable Canon/Nikon lens.

Depending on the lens, some Canon glass is better than Nikon and vice versa. Most professional photographers figure that out early on.

Steelhead3 hahaha do you try very hard to come up with statements like this? You seem like an expert in Nikon glass! Please tell me what is your favorite lens? And I'm pretty sure you used/ tested that 58mm that you're moaning about? This is the problem with this site that we have some people (couch photographers) with a lot of opinions about pictures/so called 'tests' of a brick wall that someone took, with a lens that they will never own or use from a brand that they hate but they have very very strong opinions about?! Why is that?

You're not the only one raising an eyebrow at the obvious. Though the 1Dx is considerably older- it just makes sense to compare the two bodies because exactly HOW much better one sensor is over the other makes a difference to a lot of photographers looking to purchase either body.

Donald, what do you base your statement on? These are sport cameras and noise performance is crucial. D4 is not better than 1DX in this department so it makes perfect sense to have a direct comparison.

There's no way they should be allowed to get away with claiming that ISO409,600 is available, because the image is almost completely wiped out by the noise. I can't even work out that the banknote is a banknote, let alone work out what the value was.

Time for someone to implement a "usable ISO" range. Set a resolution target of (arbitrarily) let's say half the sensor's resolution at base ISO. Once that target is no longer met, that's the upper validated ISO value.

Obviously there's a risk that manufacturers will exploit that; hello tiny sensor 40MP superzoom cameras, I know we'll be looking at you. And your lack of any detail resolution. Or we will be soon... Obviously half nothing, is still nothing - so ISO 20million; coming soon ;)

D4s gets 1/3 stop less exposure than D4 in the comparison tool. For example 1/4000 vs 1/3200 sec at ISO 6400 (f/5.6 on both cameras). Here assuming that the lighting is the same, like it's supposed to be in the new comparison tool.

The new jpeg engine appears to control noise better throughout most of the ISO range, but not without a cost: much heavier smudging of details in the green channel. See for example the green detail at the top right/bottom left.

Indeed, chroma noise reduction appears to be more heavy-handed across the board at higher ISOs. Comparing RAW with D4, noise appears to be the same or slightly worse for the D4s, but the JPEGs are rendered cleaner and with less visible chroma noise.

Nikon have improved the JPEG curve in new D4s and I like it better than plain boring JPEG curve in old D4 with no sharpening and no contrast to it. The RAW they both looks same no difference in exposure to me.

The improved high ISO is mostly via jpeg using similar edge enhancement + NR algorithms that the 5DMKIII and 6D now use, etc and little to do with RAW improvements. But that is not necessarily a bad thing as having usable jpegs OOC is actually a pro not a con and cleaner jpegs means easier to write to buffer and card. RAW should stay RAW, and jpegs should be the best they can be OOC even it that means some NR and sharpening, etc...because jpeg should really do what most do in post.

I'm a pro photographer, shooting most days. I'm always reading these reviews but never comment. today i will. I own a D3 and D4, both are good cameras. white balance was better on the D3 but with a bit of tweeking the D4 is able to produce great colours.I would have really liked to have seen a 24mp sensor, one that equals the Canon 5d Mk 3, The d800 does't feel right in my opinion and what pro wants a pop up flash?!? if only they made the D4s 24 mp i would go and buy one tomorrow. my work is a real mix, press and commercial. I used a 5d mk 3 and the difference in image quality when enlarged is superior. guess I'll be waiting for the D4X….

fair enough. I have 2 spare SP910's so any kit malfunction is instantly replaceable. There's no way i could shoot using the pop up, to me the imagery looks basic with no variation (ie bounce) so imo useless and a waste of manufactoring time and consumer money. reduce price and encourage consumer to buy speedlite.

I'm a wedding guy and have all my SB units up on poles with Pocketwizards. Every single gig I end up using the pop up flash on my D800 because something fun happens in a dark spot. I hate to, but the difference is either capturing the moment and not capturing the moment.

I own a 5Dlll and the one thing I don't like about it as a previous Nikon shooter, is that it doesn't have a popup flash and an auto focus assist beam, yes if all you do are studio shoots 100% of the time, than who need a popup flash, but I also take my camera out with me for casual use, and I do not want to carry a speed light with me every time I take my camera out side, but I still want fill flash, why would anyone not want the option, I congratulate Nikon for putting one on the D800, and also the focus assist beam, I have had many times wear I had trouble getting focus in low light with the 5Dlll, wear the focus assist beam would of made the difference, does being a pro, mean that you never use the camera outside of the studio ? the 5Dlll is already heavy to carry around, I don't want to carry speed lights on top of it, but i guess Canon thinks the same way as you, and if you already own Nikon and want 24mp, why not get the Nikon D610, instead of complaining about the D4s low Mp

Njohnson - I thought the point of having pocket wizards on poles is so you don't have to use pop up? to be fair that's a good point though, i don't shoot weddings.

Photo Jonathan - I'm not complaining, its a forum, open discussion!?! and why are you suggesting i shoot studio?,I work for a national paper shooting features so im afraid i dont do casual use and need a pro kit. If i rocked up to job using the pop up flash then the pic editor would shoot me (and not with a camera). you may love the pop up but i personally could never use it. Basically the D3x with it's 24 mp is what i was hoping for in the d4s upgrade. I have to shoot with bus stop advertising in mind and with 16mp i lose confidence. D610, you having a laugh!?

HowaboutRAW - yes appreciate iso troubles but I though we were at the stage in technology where shooting comfortably at 3200iso on a 24mp camera is achievable. Dont want a D800 it feels flimsy, sorry.

Timmbits,I shot my kids' anniversaries in candle light at 3200 ISO and a got very clean images with a "simple" D600. However there is still some shake blurr so I whish I could have the D4s 12800 iso ( or more ) performance!

This "outdated" 16MP sensor is still considered as the very best sensor ever made in the 35mm world! You would never evaluate a car (a sensor) only with the number of persons (pixels) it can take aboard.

I think what is a better analogy is Car manufacturers use there engines for years they just tweak them a bit. The same can be said for Nikon and Canon. I myself prefer my A77 and A65. Granted I don't make a living off of my cameras but I would prefer more pixels compared to the 16mp. Hell my new Phone uses a 20mp Compact Camera Sensor. Nikon really needs to up its game. I haven't owned any of there cameras in years.

A sensor, no matter how important it is, does not make a good camera by itself. Studio photographers will grab D800s but news journalists, sports photographers, and paparazzis usually prefer the speed of D4s and willing to trade 36MPs for the speed alone and never miss the extra MPs. More battery life just makes everything even more perfect for them.

Nikon may and will continue to buy from Sony, and to certain extent will not get hurt much by the decision (probably even gain more from economy of scale), because they still have (arguably) better AF algorithms, a tradition of lenses that stretches FAR back to the 70s (or 50s with the introduction of Df), people who has invested too much and too deep into Nikon system to switch, and not to forget their fanboys.

Nikon does a better job in noise reduction and the lower noise in RAW file because the Nikon image processing is superior compare to Sony image processing.

Sony BionX like my A7 is a lot better than Nex 7, its a huge improvement over that. Hopefully they continue to improve overtime though. Although perferably I leave high iso NR on at low level so it looks nice and clean without speckles. If you have high ISO NR off and using JPEG you will end up seeing awful speckles on it. Or better use RAW and use the raw image software that does better job with noise removal than camera. For Nikon I prefer RAW it looks much better off that way.

Incamera image processing is NOT powerful enough to remove most of noise due to lack of memory and cpu processing. So it won't be perfect for incamera JPEG noise removal. So as a result, proper software noise removal with plenty of CPU/RAM will do much better job. Or the camera would take hours to process one single file at fine noise removal.

to be expected. I would have been surprised of the opposite. The D4 was already pushing the limit, and the improvements are now incremental anyway unless there is a breakthrough, which you will not get on and "s" revamp.

You gotta laugh at people suggesting 16mp is not enough, like blind little lambs following fast in the marketing departments wake.Run little lambs, there's a paddock full of megapixels just up ahead.....

Having spent years shooting a Nikon pro 4mp body (D2hs), which I still occasionally use, and 12mp Nikons + Canon 5D2, it is plain as day to me that 16 measly mp is NOT enough for large print work on smooth substrate that doesn't give canvas-like latitude. I was VERY unimpressed with 16mp for large print work back from Canon 1Ds II. Even 20mp is nice, but isn't close to being "ideal" for large, colour, artistic renditions for many photographers- and 16mp is puny for large landscape work, irrespective of the camera's format (35mm based system or MF digital back).

Fact is that some people actually use a lot of res, and many more people aren't affected by the lack of it. I remember when people opined that 12mp was "overkill" which was nuts to anyone with a brain in their… head… who wanted to print 20x30 and northward, especially after cropping to the client's taste.

For those looking for a MF substitute, the D4s isn't even remotely close to being the "it" camera.

it's the need and requirement. these r professional tools for particular requirements. a formula one and ski action photographer doesn't need more than 16MP of fast action res and this nikon is among the best 2 cameras for this particular work out there. for an architectural / jewellery / fashion photographer, those shoot for outputs which might become ads on buildings and large store fronts and very large posters, 16MP isn't enough. for this 30MP and up is required. some people as you suggested never print work or if they did they print a maximum of (30x40cm) and claim 16MP isn't enough, those aren't professionals and this blog is about a professional tool, so don't get bothered by inexperienced comments.

Max limit of MP acceptable for sharpness, low noise etc for full frame DSLR is under 25MP. Going beyond, it gets more noisy, softer and inferior at high ISO like D800E and A7R for example which are not acceptable in picture quality. Good example in studio comparison you can look up.

I can prove that full scan of 35mm slide film can achieve at 4000DPI, going beyond 4000DPI it gets a lot softer and more noisy. I done that in my experience. Done the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED and the Plustek Opticfilm 120.

Outdoor ads printed at 25 DPI:Not to deny advantages of super large image files in some commercial work but I spent time in print imaging and setup for large format printing, the stuff that you might see on the side of a building in NYC. Going by standard output for outdoor ads or murals, I recall we'd often print at 25 DPI outdoor and, even then, the processing of those drum scan files took forever. That was twelve years ago and everything has obviously progressed though I doubt any need for a greater outdoor res. A 16MP res image will work for an outdoor ad and, even then, suit larger because of viewing scale factors. I'd say the larger D800 pixel count is either for exceptional and necessary cropping opportunities, super large exhibit formats or for someone obsessed but comforted by detail that hardly alters aesthetic success captured at 16MP. Glad to see Nikon remain at 16 with the D4s.

Photographers won't criticise it as they'll appreciate that performance falls of rapidly at the top edge of the ISO range, and they'll appreciate that it's down to the photographer as to what they consider usable or not.

Contrary to 'many' people here that crave for super small and super light cameras, i've always have lust for this type of camera..Yes i do like to bring smaller camera for simple photo on vacation, but for professional use of course this type of camera is a dream..'Many' people say that small mirrorless camera are capable of results like big camera, i don't decline it, right now apsc sensor is already very goodBut big body have their own advantage.. If it doesn't fit you, why bash it all around saying stupid things? Like good perfume come in small bottle haha..Or every other people use ISO 100 only.. Then why dont you just use film and shoot ISO 100?Even iphone shoots more than ISO 100..

To small and to light makes for an unbalanced system when used with prime glass(300,400,500,600 and 800mm's). It also makes it difficult to hold. It seems that everybody on here are becoming whimpy old farts. DP Review is fast becoming less of a trusted site for good quality, honest info on cameras.

@traingineer: I feel you. It is sad, but people want lighter cameras (more practical & portable). They're more convenient to tote around when traveling or when the gig requires them to be moving around with their bricks strapped to their neck (eg weddings, events). For solely studio use, weight may not matter that much as they use tripod anyway.

Hence, “lighter = better sales”. More weight (weighted) cameras only do something to the "good" or "right" feeling when holding them, but it doesn’t do much about utility, function, it even makes it less practical and less portable (at best, weightier bodies only give more stability when paired with large lenses. But with those lenses you probably shouldn’t handheld in the first place, and sandbags + tripod does the trick).

Majority will choose practicality and portability over “good feeling when holding”. Those who prefer otherwise are too insignificant in number to warrant Nikon’s attention. Nikon will choose better sales, any day.

I backpacked around Europe for 55 days with a D90 + Tokina 116 and it was a nightmare, even now I can still feel the strain it gave me, the weight's killing me! I cannot imagine how those pros strap an F5 or D3 - they must've a very trained neck.

Then I learned, I should have gotten a R7 Sport, but I digress. Maybe I’ll be smarter and get something else for backpacking, next time. A NEX or Nikon 1 V3 (with an ultra-wide lens) would surely save my traveling mood.

That being said, I personally like the feeling I get when holding my F100 and my F3 - one of major reason is their weight. I continually use them just because they feel good, despite the inconvenience film processing gives me.

But that’s just me. I'm no pro and mostly do it at home or around the neighborhood, sometimes to some locations but we commute by car & I swear never again to carry bricks when traveling (moreover on my neck).

The D800 was highly impressive. The D4s is very dull. I recall respected journalists saying 5 megapixels was too much and tired old arguments about bigger pixels automatically meaning better quality images. I'd suggest empirical evidence is used rather than believing in a concept for the sake of it. Fast burst rate and huge monstrosities of cameras or high megapixel full frame sensors giving excellent image quality? Unless you're wanting hundreds of photos of celebrities or crap sports photos the choice is obvious. Ever feel like you've been conned?

I have the D800 which takes 4 f/s and I love it, however, as a wildlife photographer living in Africa, I dream of a camera which can take more shots a second to get those perfect action shots. I cant wait to get my D4S

@michael19843 the D4s is not "very dull". It's simply just not for you.

Some like perfect Cs, some like humongous DDs, some like "normal" Bs or some even prefer As! You know I'm talking about cups.

D4s is just not your "cup" of tea. That's all.

For example, I am no pro nor paparazzi, but I lust over D4s for its large size and weight, its AF speed and fast burst rate, to take pics of my kids!

I know it may be an overkill, but let's say same preference comes to those people who don't race but want a Ferrari for some silly reason they cannot explain.

Surely to me, D4s (or to them, a Ferrari) is far from "dull". Perhaps a D800 is. But I take it just being not my cup of tea.

As function goes, a D800 is no equal substitute for a D4s, and vice versa, for their own raison d'etre. Just like @Randal Hinz expressed. Sometimes image quality is not measured by the quality of image per se. What good comes from a stunning image quality of a moment you missed between 4fps' frames?

Bull*! Lots of people at home still have old TV still not worn out yet. They can last up to 10-20 years. Lots of people at home are still stuck with old HD up to 1333 pixel and 1920 pixel across, even lots of people still have older tv that only goes with SD.

Those video lenses you are poo poohing have much lower transmission loss & are an order of quality that exceeds standard photography needs with manual focus only. Canon are doing this because they have a good collection of primes & zooms already.

The 16 megapixel full-frame sensor confirms my belief that bigger is better: Bigger pixels can deliver better results than more pixels. Bigger pixels means that each pixel can capture more photons. I hope we see a trend of serious cameras marketed for dynamic range, color quality, and low noise instead of merely more pixels. My concern is that increasing the number of pixels ultimately degrades or sacrifices image quality.

Some how I don't think that going from 10 fps to 11fps is anything to get excited about. It seems to me that Digital Photo tech has become a mature technology so manufacturers are scrambling to find any "improvements" they can to keep people buying upgrades. Digital has reached the point where it's like film. You use your body until it breaks.

they sell millions of units for that hefty price. technically it is awesome but over over priced. the pro don't care, they make up the price in a few days, some in a few hours, and that's what manufacturers count on..

Exactly, and that cash cow is stopping the D400/D9000. Remember Kodak? It had a price-gouged cash cow that gave it the funds to invent a technology that killed its own cash cow.Now Nikon fear the same thing - their own Kodak moment. If they made a D7100 with pro specs, it would risk a landslide movement away from these overpriced full-frame pro cameras and their needed long lenses, on a scale like the move to Canon AF in the late '80's.Imagine every sports photographer in the world no longer needing a 600mm f4 lens to fill the frame with the goalposts. $2000 D9000 + $2000 70-200 instead of $6000 D4s and $9000 400mm - you have to sell a lot of cameras to make up for that!But the time has come, because the world's media photographers know that a 24x16 sensor, and even an 18x12mm sensor, can now deliver all the IQ they need for print and web. Fuji and Olympus have shown them that via the back door. It's only Nikon and Canon who are keeping the revolution at bay by their inactivity.

But if they ignore it, they not only do the wrong thing by the world's photo industry, they also risk losing market dominance, maybe to a sleeper. Maybe as quickly as you can say "Pentax Spotmatic, the world's largest selling fine camera".

Nikon concentrates at the moment in the production of cameras that are special in function and design but that nobody really needs and 99% of all photographers do not want. The price of this gadget here, the DF, and the new 1V3 confirm this without any doubt. If Nikon wants to survive, do things people ask for and that sell, and do it at reasonable prices and no the same junk re-polished eternally. 5 or 6 models with the same 24 mpix sensor, that really sucks, specially when you know that they all do the same shot and the only difference is in minor body comfort. Take the D5300 and give it a lens motor drive, and that's it, all the others are useless since then you have one camera that has it all and does it all. Do beside that the same camera in a high end pro body, and you do the game without loss and criticism. 6000+$ for a D4S and 1200$ for a 1V3, more than 1000$ for the A, ridiculous.

Go back to sleep Nikon!!! - OR start getting INOVATIVE - AND giving value-for -money please. STOP doing silly little upgrades - especially to your Consumer range of DSLRs, try incorporating Vari-angle screens on at least the D7000 range, - AND perhaps on the D3000 range; - NOT just on the D5000 range. DONT make the bodies any smaller; we want a DSLR that we can see & hold comfortable; - those who want smaller cameras will buy compacts or CSC cameras. Sony is being INOVATIVE, so is Olympus; - you USED TO BE.

these are really welcome additions to me. The issue for my taste is: how much of this could not be incorporated in the D4 already? 2 years life cycles on pro bodies id just too short. 4-5 years make you feel better about your investment.

Lightweight003....I sure agree with you on 'making the bodies smaller'! The Nikon D300 is a hell of a camera to hold feel and operate. I still am awaiting a true successor to it. Although i did get a D7000 after reading reviews of its high ISO and technical image quality, the D7K does deliver on that part. But hell...whenever i hold it...it sure does not inspire that much of confidence...feel my faithful D300 does! I know full frame is now 'in'...and maybe Nikon does not feel that bringing out a D400 will not be good business to them,...but believe me...we photographers here in India (at least most of us) totally are mated to DX. And take my word...we wait everyday for a D400 teaser on DPR! Many are still waiting to upgrade. Hope someday Nikon takes due notice. :(

Purchasing a new DSLR with this hefty pricetag, you would expect specs that are competitive for a few years. At this price level you would expect premium photo resolution and high video quality such as 4K. How come the 4S only provides medioker photo resolution, and yesterdays video specs?? Imagine how behind the 4S will be in a few years, when it is so behind already at the launch date

Yes and no. Every designer team has to pick a battle to fight. By your logic, a lesser camera may come with a built-in flash, then a D4s should have 3 built-in flashes. But they decided that's not what appeal to their target market.

Well this is the problem, the D4s needs to withstand the competition for two years, when the D5 will be announced. 16mgs is right now the sweet spot for Nikon just like 12 was a few years back with the D3 and D3s. Also, what do you mean by mediocre photo resolution? If you need more megapixels there are plenty of choices for that but none better in low-light and fast paced environments

It's a specific tool for a specific job. It's a news photographer's camera. It needs to be fast, rugged, have a good battery life, be capable of getting the job done under the least photographically-friendly circumstances, and be able to send files as quick as possible to the news desk. The guy who sends in the second picture of the touchdown doesn't get paid! If you put 36mp on a camera like this, news togs will just down-res to 12-16mp anyway in order to get the files out fast. If you put 4k video, same applies. Horses for courses.

It's all ending up on websites or newsprint anyway. Were it not for the high ISO performance, you could submit JPEGs off a D1h and they would still be publishable.

But hey, if you want to rock up to a fire with a 36mp camera and have the image arrive half an hour after the news item went online, go for it. Charity work is always well received.

I don't think they have enough funds to continue making DX Pro models. A lot of major changes happened since film era cameras. Electronics now have advantage over camera its self and they have to sell that innovation to make money. I think the N80 as a camera, is better than any of these DX pro models. But this is my personal observation.

@lem12, amen to that brother, but just as far as build quality goes. Speaking about convenience and processing economy, film era has long passed. I still use my F3 and F100, but that's just because I really like the feeling of using them - the size of its viewfinder, the sound of its shutter, the weight, the smoothness of AI-s lens, even the split screen is a joy to use! This is a very personal opinion, of course.

PS: But surely not because film processing is more convenient than using lightroom.

I got Breast Cancer 6 years ago (I'm male). I saved and saved for my D3s. I love it. I take photos of family, events, singers, bands, etc. I brought the best glass I could. Life is short. My father died just over a year ago from cancer. About 4 months after he was diagnosed. My mother has Dementia. I care(d) for both of them, and pretty much gave up my career. I have gorgeous photos of my father taken with my D3s. So much detail. Priceless.

Whatever camera you get, big or small, it's not ALL about the specs. It's what you get out of it.

Been awhile for the D4s, If I can get it, I will. My D3s does everything I want it to. I want another body so I don't have to keep swapping lenses.

If you want and can afford a D4s, go get one. If you want a P&S, great. No right or wrong in camera choice. We live in amazing times as photographers.

Get out, shoot. We're all gonna die someday, and I for one, aren't gonna bitch about a few megapixels, or FPS here and there.

I agree, we have sometimes to come back to "basics", to what LIFE is giving us. Sometimes not so fine, but you're right, we should have to appreciate and like what we can enjoy day to day, specially in photography.. Might be that we could consider we are now in a kind of new "golden age of photography", with a huge amount of possibilities. Even if all is not perfect ? Mpix, Framerate aso.. are not the most important and anyway, we will allways waiting for better specs, which will come or not..? With time Mpix and others tech specs will be forgotten, photos remain ! That's important.

PCNation is now taking orders for the D4s. I just spoke to Rick, and the first ten order spots are taken, but they're happy to keep taking them. I've been using him for a year now, and he's never let me down.

Not bulky at all. You must have hands like a kid. My D4 fits perfect in my hands. All the controls are in the right place and big enough for my fingers. and no, it's not heavy. I carry it all day long with my 70-200 on the cam.

Try Sony A7 with battery grip pack. Now thats bulky that I have Sony A7 and that. And it handles much better though and is more comfortable to hold on. I don't like tiny flimsy light weight camera that you cannot hold it more steady and is more like wobble and shaking. Still Sony A7 with that grip is much lighter than the full DSLR with battery grip though.

I DO so hate it when I see people complaining, saying a DSLR is bulky/heavy. Have people become limp-wristed wimps during the last generation or two??? I for one would hate to see Nikon trying to make their consumer range of DSLRs any smaller.

one can just under expose and boost ISO in post. they are the same thing except that it's difficult to check under exposed photos on camera (which should be able to be corrected by a firmware update), so the value of ISO #%&+*$ is shorter response loop at the cost of dynamic range.

I have both D4 and D800e. For daily photography I prefer D4 even though it is bigger, but it has better ergonomics and vertical grip. 16 MPix are enough for practically everything, and the focus speed and high ISO performance are great.

For "artsy stuff" like studio portraits and landscape with tripod out comes the D800e. And as a backup if two bodies are needed sometimes.

I also have the new Fujifilm X-T1 which is wonderful, but it is not an action camera as the body is too small for good ergonomics and the buttons are too small. Great for stealthy reportage, hiking etc, though.

I pretty sure they don't want to upset either Canon or Nikon with their finding! Did you see that all the other reviews of 5dmkIII and D800 for example they arrive to the exact same results in percentage points? That is ridiculous, but again, DP are trying hard not to make any waves instead of doing professional and independent reviews. God, I miss Phil…

well they should define a scale with more resolutions, as most of these cameras I find it fair to score similarly. Also they have different strengths and weaknesses so they cannot exactly be compared. Especially the D800 and the 5D, better scoring for these 2 cameras is really user preference dependent.

Thanks Smizles for the the link. Some of the stuff is not right in the tables though. For instance 1DX says to be 1500shots/battery charge, which is ridiculously off. I am pretty sure you can get more that 5,000 shots with it. Also lag time on the 1DX can be set as low as 36ms

actually, just for fun, I checked today's shoot I had. About 6,500 shots on a battery, which btw was far from depleted. Most shots were at ISO 6,000 or above, using image stabilization and continuous focus.

@Nomoreheroesnevertheless the 5DMKIII is a more all rounded camera, which has its weight. I personally would take the 5D out far more often than the D800. And I know as a fact that I am not the only one. The rare times I need the extra from the sensor I pull up a Pentax 645D. So which is better? The one with the better specs on paper or the one that you prefer to use most of the times?

So true. D4 and D800s are by far the best general tools I have had the privilege to use in almost 50 years of photography and 35 years of professional carrier. There are almost as good ones like Canon D1x and smaller reportage tools like Fujifilm X-series, the photographer makes the difference, not the small technical differences between makes and models.

Actually it was a slightly bigger jump than that - I went from a D700 to the D4. I made the jump because of the higher rated shutter life along with the higher frame rate of the D4 since much of what I shoot is birds in flight.

Except in one very important way the D700 to D4 is less of a jump. You see the D3s is a better high ISO camera than the D4, likely has better dynamic range too.

So not really a “bigger” leap.

Of course the D4 has a faster frame rate than the D700 and better AF, so you got those better qualities.In short: There are very real reasons that people gave up the D3 for the D3s. And likely the same applies to the D4 versus the D4s.

As an "advanced amateur" I typically don't upgrade with every new DSLR that comes out. For my uses, no need to upgrade from my D4 to a D4s. Also, I'm not so sure that the D4 prices will plummet. However, even though I'm not a "professional", I can assure you that I enjoy the D4 (and would enjoy a D4s). Seems like there was more of an incremental improvement from the D3 to D3s, and I passed on that upgrade. In doing so, I probably appreciated the D4 more than if I had upgraded from the D3s.

I prefer the brick bodies compared to the tiny bodies that don't offer the same functionality. I got used to the Nikon pro bodies and when I got a 5d2 (canon), it didn't, and still doesn't feel as good in my hands, nor is it as easy for me to do things (custom wht balance, flash comp, bracketing, etc). All quicker and easily accessible on the pro bodies.

I second Teila's sentiments. Once I laid my hands on my first "brick" body (a D2H), going back to my d70 and D200 never felt as good in my hands. Just a personal preference, and I understand those who like small bodies. It's nice that we all have the optin to get what suits us best!

I got Sony A7 and battery grip and is a brick body too. So stop underestimate the size of mirrorless when it comes with battery grip. Your statement is ridiculous! Fix your statement and repost if you can then I will approve that make sense.

The small camera size doesn't mean you can't have a great controls (even better than in D4) just under your fingertips. It is question about selling your product and get more expensive ones to be better than cheaper ones. This is problem if you are well known camera manufacturer among street subjects, but not so much if you are less known where you don't have to proof your ego in marketing power.

For every "pro" shooting with a Nikon D4S at ISO 409600 ISO, there will be 4096 amateurs with a P&S or smartphone shooting at ISO 100. Do you understand now why Chicago Sun-Times fired the entire photography staff last year, to just rely on freelance photographers?

No. Explain to me why a pool of inexperienced amateurs is better then a professional and how that has anything to do with ASA. Do you use the same rational for say auto repair, medical advice. Would an even bigger pool of trained monkeys using phones with ASA 50 be even better?

It should be clear to everyone that the most important social events are now better covered by the participants themselves than the traditional press, since almost everyone carries a PS camera or a smartphone. Consider, for example , the dramatic events in Kiev, Ukraine. Have you seen the photos? Tthe vast majority of the photos and videos that will remain as a record of this historic moment, were taken by PS cameras and not by Nikons D4 or Canons 1D.

The PS cameras and smartphones are great for journalistic coverage because the IQ of the small sensors has reached an excellent level, much better than of a ASA 400 Tri-X film, which was widely used by photo reporters in the twentieth century. Furthermore, the small focal distance of those small-sensor cameras ensures a great depth of field, so that the pictures are always in focus. Last but not least, smartphones allow instant transmission of the photos, something that a "professional" D4 doesn't.

Don't know how Nikon couldn't do that, while Olympus did it with E-M1. Just flip a switch and scroll rear and front wheels to locate AF area. Or just point a touch screen or move direction buttons. And you don't need in first and third manner take camera off from your eye.

Looks like I'm due for a new camera this fall. A high shutter actuation, well maintained, clean Nikon D4 to replace my D3. The release of the D3s was, in fact, how I got my D3 four years ago. For $2400, that D3 has been a very nice camera!

I am still a loyal customer of Nikon. But this uninspiring D4s confirms my move. Step by step I get rid of those old world huge cameras. They seem to me like dinosaurs from the past.

I do not want to bash because I believe in Nikon’s excellent sensors’ computer code and ergonomics. I also had the Canon FF cameras with L-lenses. I sold them at very good prices some time ago. I questioned more and more to hike in the mountains with those “tons” of black cases with a huge backpack limiting moves and fun.

Now I still got the D5200 – pros will smile – and mirrorless; and wait for the next generation of cellphone/integrated cameras to migrate to. It’s like with the stock markets. Buy early and sell into the last waves.

In a couple of years, no one can imagine that we took photos with those huge, heavy, and strange looking cameras.

Sometimes it is decision point to liberate. Less load is more joy. More joy and dedication produce better pictures.

Thomas,Of course you wouldn't want to carry this around all day. But I'd be willing to bet a lot of money - any amount you want - that the pro level cameras from Nikon and Canon will still be around in a couple of years...and a couple years after that, and after that...

Tech products are demanded smaller, portable and connected; and less expensive. Naturally, there always might be a demand for fully loaded large cars. China now is getting strangled by pollution and this backward orientation. I doubt that they can sustain it this way.

I would not like to be an investor in DSRLs goods. Later on they will be viewed like steam locomotives as a dead end row. Did you imagine several years ago that we get cell phones that small and versatile? Years ago you had a Motorola as large as a brick. Nobody today would think of using it anymore, regardless of possibly updated specs.

What's with the obsession these days with a camera has to fit in a pocket or be tiny.It's not designed to be lightweight, it's a heavy weight in design and features and bulk. It's not for you if your idea of photography is walking about with a camera snapping anything in view. Use your phone for that.

Have you seen those huge dump trucks on the road carrying all that sand and gravel??? I mean who wants to drive that thing around all day. I have a VW Beetle and drive to the store once a week to get groceries and it's just fine. Oh and occasionally I go to Wal Mart and buy a bag of sand .......... so I can carry sand just like they do; so why would I want that huge dump truck???

So why can't his Beetle carry better sand? Will magical Forces prevent him from replacing that one bag of sand with a bag of premium or high grade sand? I'm not even going to get into the quantity issue.

Also you apparently don't know what a Beetle can do.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hOSMIdEelxA/TcCH2QmIdxI/AAAAAAAABB4/CWZguwr0iks/s1600/1946+VW+Beetle+Pickup.jpg

Sorry .. You defend the DF, but I defend Beetles for the same reasons. ;)

@ HowaboutRAW ........ Sorry, sarcasm intended. My point to the OP is that every product is obviously not made for every situation. It's absurd to complain about the size of a full blown pro product when using it for anything but its intended purpose. I bought my 17 year old daughter a D5200 and recently used it to shoot a basketball game with my 70-200 f2.8. Never again. My hand cramped up in about 30 minutes. The thought of mounting my 300 f2.8 on it ....... mmmmmm. Give me big and useful over tiny and cramped any day.

Oh and I don't have a Beetle either. Ram 1500 4 x 4 here. Great truck ....... but I still can't compete with a 20 yard dump truck for some odd reason.

You complain about the "huge, heavy and strange looking cameras". Toughen up man - what about the guys like Ansel who used to trek to very far away places with ultra heavy view cameras, Hasselblads etc. If the image is worth it - the weight does not matter.

Think about pioneer photographers with 8x10" and even bigger glass plates, huge cameras and a DARKROOM carried by mules to prepare and develop those wet plates each time they wanted a snap a picture...